Sorry, my mistake on the "socialized" comment. I still agree with my initial comment however. From everything I've read about countries who have adopted something like this approach (several European countries have done so), the quality of their health care has *decreased*. Those who can afford it come to America for the best (not the cheapest) care.
Without living there, though, it's hard to know for sure. My opinion is that the good old US of A should stay away from it because I would rather pay more for better care. As evident by my recent spate of posts, I favor a balance between creators and consumers using patents and copyrights with limited durations. The system isn't broken, just too far out of balance in favor of creators. --Dan On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:00:01 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Dan Reese wrote: > > > I never mentioned "socialize healthcare" or "patent monopolies." I just > > pointed out that if you remove monetary rewards (which patents and > > copyrights are designed to protect), then a lot of motivation to innovate > > is lost. I also limited my comments to "a company" and excluded > > "individuals" who often have altruistic motives outside of money. > > I was referring to this statement in your earlier post: > > "Same problem with health care -- "free" health care for everyone (paid > for > by taxes) will only decrease the quality of that care as the incentive > to > focus on the patient decreases." > > Such health care is commonly called "socialized", because the government > takes > care of everybody in that respect. In a sense, the government claims a > monopoly on healthcare. Likewise, in legal jargon, patents are > considered > government-granted monopolies on a particular idea. > > We do certainly agree that money can be an effective motivator for > companies. > I just wanted to point out that plenty of scenarios exist in which > companies > can be motivated by profit, but without the need for patents or > copyright. > > > > I guess I just really doubt that a scenario where the "the company > > profits without any need for 'ownership' of the idea" would work in real > > life as you suggest. > > Certainly your prerogative. My combative tone in the earlier post > probably > added to that doubt, for which I apologize. But you might try out some > thought experiments along those lines; lots of business systems work > effectively which have nothing to do with patent law, and many of them > would > work just as well in the areas which currently do involve patents (like > pharmaceuticals). > > -J ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
